Formula 1: Nick Heidfeld analyzes 2010 F1 year

Nick Heidfeld set off on the last Barcelona weekend. With photographer and notepad. The 167-time GP driver observed and rated the cars exclusively for a uto motor und sport on the last two test days in Barcelona. He went to five different points on the way to come to a clear analysis. 'One corner is not enough to tell whether a car is good or bad. You have to look at a fast, a slow corner, a place with bumps, one where you drive over the curbs.'

Individual review by Nick Heidfeld

Not Ferrari is the favorite, but Red Bull. Only at Mercedes GP , Michael Schumacher and Nico Rosberg's substitute pilot did not provide any information. Understandable, because Mercedes is Heidfeld's new employer. Here are the Mercedes rivals in Heidfeld's individual review:

Ferrari : I liked Ferrari much better in Jerez than in Barcelona. I don't think they made their car worse on purpose. So it must be the route. Jerez just suited the Ferrari better. The car's balance was practically neutral with a minimal tendency to understeer. That was more pronounced in Barcelona, ​​which may be because the course in Barcelona has provoked understeer since there was a new surface. Jerez, on the other hand, tends to generate oversteer.

If a car that is generally understeer now drives on a route with a tendency to understeer, the effect is intensified. In Jerez he balances himself out. That would be a plausible theory as to why Ferrari didn't look quite so good in Barcelona. In recent years we have seen time and again that certain cars work better or worse on certain routes. So the balance of power will again be track-specific this year.

One thing you can see at Ferrari is that the car has a lot of downforce. It's stable in fast corners, which gives the driver confidence. If the understeer turns into a sudden oversteer, the Ferrari is still easy to control, even with a lot of fuel on board. In general: a car that is easy to driveis, is usually also fast. In any case, I've never had a well-balanced car that was slow. The other way round, a difficult-to-drive car can be fast and slow.

Red Bull : I don't even have to look at the lap times to know: The Red Bull sees the track clearly the best. But only in the last two days of testing, when new parts were added to the car. It's almost terrifying how good the Red Bull is. I think they didn't show everything in Barcelona. I have seldom seen a car that is so well balanced in slow and fast corners. In fast corners, no car has more downforce than the Red Bull, not even the Ferrari.

The downforce is also stable. No one can brake as deep into the corners as Vettel and Webber, no car goes over the curbs so well, no car swings so quickly after uneven ground. They must have worked a lot on the damping and the suspension geometry. Last year the car jumped over the curbs quite a bit. The balance window is incredibly small. This means that understeer and oversteer are only very slight. Vettel and Webber seem to be able to drive effortlessly at the limit. In short, a car without weaknesses.

McLaren : McLaren didn't make sense to me at first. When Button drove on Saturday, I was disappointed. The car was incredibly nervous on bumpy ground, it reacted extremely when braking and accelerating. In technical jargon this is called 'pitch-sensitive'. On the final day, Hamilton was in the cockpit and the McLaren was transformed. Probably because they had the new parts on the car. The car is still a tad too much understeer and oversteer. It also seems to me to be very tightly tuned in slow corners, which can only be observed in the fast corners of the other top cars.

Sauber : This is the hardest tuned car in the field. It jumps very hard on uneven ground. Maybe they have to drive this hard to stay in a certain window with aerodynamics. The Sauber looks like a car that is difficult to drive. With Kobayashi I was always worried that he would take off immediately. But apparently the car is fast. Now it will depend on whether Sauber can maintain the level. He can certainly no longer develop at the level that would be the case with a works team.

Toro Rosso : The Toro Rosso goes surprisingly well. Surprising because the car looks unspectacular. But the impression on the track is good. The car is oversteeringmaybe a tad too much, but it's still in the drivable range. That's why the tires are not destroyed either.

Williams : The Williams is average in almost all disciplines. Nowhere particularly good or particularly bad. The car seems to me to be extremely soft, which is comfortable in slow corners and on curbs, but brakes in fast corners. In turn 9, which is the fast right on the back straight, no car rolls more than the Williams.

Renault : As with Red Bull and McLaren, Renault only improved significantly on the last day of testing. Overall, the car is very nervous, or at least it has to be driven nervously and aggressively. When Vitaly Petrov came along in the first round, I thought: What is he doing there? But that was the same every round. The deflections in understeer and oversteer are relatively strong, but controllable. As I said, things looked better on the last day Robert Kubica was in the car. I would guess: easily in midfield.

Force India : The car looks very good in fast corners, but is generally a bit nervous. Perhaps that is also due to Sutil's aggressive driving style.

The newbies: The balance of the Virgin is a disaster. That was worse than my Jordan from 2004. This raises questions about whether you can develop a car without a wind tunnel. In contrast, the Lotus looks much more balanced. The car has more downforce than the Virgin, but less grip and poor traction compared to the others.